“I don’t like 1% of what he’s done!” Pat and Stu lose it on Trump caller

July 13, 2015

WRITER

For some reason, a lot of callers have been big Donald Trump fans. Despite having laid out policy after policy from Trump that show him to be left of most Democrats on issues like immigration, many people called into the show today trying to say he was going to be tough on the border. Stu literally couldn’t take it, and nearly exploded on one caller who didn’t seem to grasp just how progressive The Donald’s politics are.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

PAT: Donald Trump. Donald Trump. Trump. Trump. Trump. It's amazing how obsessed they are with him. 239 times in one 24-hour period. That's more than ten times per hour. That's a lot of Donald Trump. And this is why we talk about him and try to put this into perspective. His candidacy into perspective. Because he is -- as we've mentioned sucking all the oxygen out of this campaign. That's all anyone is talking about. Certainly CNN is.

STU: Well, I was on Twitter in the break. And someone wrote, it's about time to move on the beat on Donald Trump. When he's first? When he gets to eighth place, I'll start considering it. When he drops out of the race, I'll consider it. When we have a Republican Party that has a bunch of good options selecting a person who donated to his competitor, who donated to the person running for the Democrats multiple times.

PAT: How do you defend that?

STU: A guy who said he was Obama's biggest cheerleader?

PAT: Yeah.

STU: How can that -- I'm not going to move on from that. Screw that. That's a terrible idea.

PAT: A guy who was a Democrat as recently as 2009.

STU: '9. Not 1969.

PAT: A Democrat.

STU: 2009. I'm not going to move on when he's in first place.

JEFFY: And you commenting on the Twitter point, Stu. Last month, on Twitter, according to topsy.com, Donald Trump led the pack with almost 2 million mentions.

STU: And who is second?

JEFFY: Jeb Bush with 338,000.

STU: Seriously.

PAT: 2 million.

JEFFY: 800,000. Almost --

STU: But basically six times as many mentions as any other candidate. You think I'll shut up about him now? This is the most important time to be running our mouth about Donald Trump. Because this is not a guy -- it's not just that if he were the nominee he would definitely lose, he has higher negatives in both parties than pretty much any other candidate.

PAT: Oh, yeah.

STU: He would definitely lose. He would definitely -- absolutely with 100 percent certainty if he was the candidate, Hillary Clinton would be handed the nomination. I mean, you would definitely -- that's not even part of the argument for me. If you have a principled guy that goes in there and loses, I can deal with that. I can live with myself if I voted for a guy who actually believes in things that are -- you know, that have some sense -- some foundation in freedom and liberty.

But when you have a guy like Donald Trump out there. He doesn't even believe these things. It's one thing if you have a candidate that is bad that at least believes in principle. This guy is the exact opposite. He doesn't believe in it. He's not a good candidate. He has no good features. This is not a guy who, well, I can see why people like him. He's just louder than everyone else.

PAT: And as tough as he is on immigration supposedly, which he's getting all the publicity about now, he's an amnesty guy. He wants amnesty. How tough is that on illegal immigration? I want a path to citizenship. I want the amnesty thing. Oh, that's -- that's tough. Well, he's tough because he's said that some of them are not good people that come across the border. And he keeps talking about building a wall between the US and Mexico. Well, first of all, you're not going to be able to build a wall between the US and Mexico. We can't even get a fence. We can't even get a fence that was mandated by law.

STU: But every one of these candidates says they'll be tough on border security.

PAT: Every one of them. Even the Democrats will say that. Oh, we'll secure the border. That's first and foremost.

STU: And for those of you that says, well, he'll do it. When he's criticizing Mitt Romney that he's too conservative on the border. As of 2012. It's inexplicable. It's an inexplicable time. At least Herman Cain was a guy that came around and people didn't know much about.

PAT: But he had conservative principles.

STU: Yeah. But Donald Trump is constantly on the record as a leftist. He's a guy who said universal health care is a birthright. This is not Barack Obama. It's considerably to the left of Barack Obama. That policy is -- it's -- he's praising Canadian health care. Canadian health care. You think this guy is a G.O.P. candidate? I don't even want him as a Democratic nominee. I would be disappointed, with the exception of he would be very beatable, but if he was the guy and we had a possibility of him being president as a Democrat, I would be disappointed.

PAT: And yet Jim in Colorado likes him. Hi, Jim, you're on the Glenn Beck Program with Pat and Stu.

CALLER: Oh, great lead-in, fellows.

STU: Sorry. I didn't mean to rant that long about that. I apologize.

CALLER: Well, you know what, you probably added 10 more new fans for him for every second you stay on it.

STU: I don't see how. I understand that. Hold on one second, Jim. Before you go on from that point. It's a point I hear a lot. And I understand that. And I think that's part of the reflexive sort of response to Trump. Which is, they see him being attacked, and therefore like him more. Which I understand from the media. If it was just CNN saying he was an evil right-winger, I would get it. It's not that. All over the conservative space are people who will say, wait a minute. This guy is not bad because he's outspoken. Not boughs he's going to make us lose. But bad because he believes in liberal policies. He's not a conservative. And that complaint I don't understand running away from if you consider yourself conservative.

PAT: What do you like about him?

CALLER: I understand only leftists are allowed to evolve. I do understand that.

STU: From 2012?

CALLER: I'm going to try to help you understand where Trumpmania is coming from.

PAT: Okay. Let's hear it.

CALLER: We've had several people in the last 15 years that speak the truth. Speak what we want to hear. Let's go to Allen West to Herman Cain to Sarah Palin. What happens to them? The leftist media, the G.O.P. establishment, they attack, attack, and attack until they're gone. You're not going to be able to do that with Trump. Trump right now, and you can go back 16 years, you and MSNBC and CNN can play --

STU: How are we getting lumped in with these people?

CALLER: Sixteen years ago.

STU: 2012 is not 16 years ago!

CALLER: Okay. 2012.

STU: 2015. March of 2015 is not 16 years ago. I cannot accept this.

CALLER: He evolved on gay marriage in six months.

STU: Oh, and you're going to praise that as a characteristic in a president you want?

CALLER: No, no, I'm not. But no one is giving him a hard time about it.

STU: I am. You are. You won't do it for Trump. You'll do it for Hillary Clinton. But you won't do it for Trump. It's insanity.

PAT: It's inconceivable. I just don't -- it's inconceivable from a conservative, Jim. Jim, let me ask you this, okay.

You like him because he speaks truth. What truth is he speaking? Help me out with that, give me the incredible policies that Donald Trump has that he is stalwart on.

CALLER: Let me tell you. We can sit hear and listen to the three-second soundbites.

PAT: No. Just give me the truth that he's speaking that you were responding to.

CALLER: I am. I'm trying.

STU: Go for it.

PAT: The truth.

CALLER: We can listen to the three-second soundbites --

PAT: No. I know what we can do. But just tell me the truth that he's speaking.

CALLER: Of Republican candidates saying we're going to build a wall. We can sit there and listen to a three-second sound bite. And then they have to go the moderate route and they never mention it again. Donald Trump gets stuff done.

PAT: What stuff does he get done?

STU: Bankrupting casinos? What does he get done?

PAT: He built a few buildings.

STU: You know how he gets it done? Eminent domain. He steals people's properties, their private property, and gets giant casinos built. Congratulations for using the government that way.

CALLER: Okay. No one is going to like 100 percent of what --

PAT: I don't like 1 percent of what he does!

STU: All right. Can you hold on? I want more from Jim.

PAT: Hang on. That's unreal. I can't take it.

STU: I don't get it. We're up against a break. We need to come back, Jim. There has to be something there. There has to be a rational thought there somewhere.

PAT: He loves the fact that he's talking about building a wall and he'll keep talking about that. He's an amnesty guy!

STU: That's what I was saying. He hasn't evolved on that. That's his current policy.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep